High power laser therapy treatment compared to simple segmental physical rehabilitation in whiplash injuries (1� and 2� grade of the Quebec Task Force classification) involving muscles and ligaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: whiplash is a frequent post traumatic pathology caused by muscle, tendon and capsular elements over stretching. The authors conducted a short term prospective randomised study to test the effectiveness of a multi wave High Power Laser Therapy (HPLT) versus conventional simple segmental physical rehabilitation (PT) included in Italian tariff nomenclature performance physiotherapy Study Design: prospective randomised study (Level II). MATERIAL AND METHODS: the authors identified 135 homogeneous patients with whiplash grade 1 - 2 of the Quebec Task Force classification (QTFC). INAIL, the Italian National Workers Insurance, based in Milan, was reliable source for identifying patients. All patients with whiplash injuries grade 1 or 2 QTFC, were eligible for the study, starting from April 28 2010 to September 30 2010. Patients referred to a Coordinator (C.M.) who applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Dates for initial treatment session were arranged, including cervical spine X-ray, and assessment. Each patient gave informed consent for participation and agreed to adopt only the study treatment for 6 weeks. Group A (84 patients) was treated with High Power Laser Therapy (HPLT), Group B (51 patients) received conventional simple segmental physical rehabilitation (PT). During the treatment period, no other electro-medical therapy, analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs were allowed. All patients were assessed at baseline (T0) and at the end of the treatment period (T1) using a Visual Analogical Scale (VAS), (T2) the date of return to work was registered afterwards. RESULTS: there was a reduction in VAS pain scores at T1. Group A (VAS = 20) Group B (VAS = 34,8) (p =0.0048). Laser treatment allowed quick recovery and return to work (T2). Group A after 48 days against 66 days of Group B (p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: results suggest that High Power Laser Therapy - is an effective treatment in patients with whiplash injury, compared to conventional simple segmental physical rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".