Specific Directional Exercises for Patients with Low Back Pain: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether outcomes could be changed after poor response to non-specific exercise therapy when the prescription was changed to specific, directional-preference exercises (McKenzie method). METHODS: Patients who participated in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) and the alternative care phase immediately following formed the cohort for this case series. In an earlier RCT, patients with directional preference were randomized to exercises/advice matched to their individual directional preference or to one of two unmatched protocols. The primary inclusion criterion for our case series was patient reports of being unchanged or worse following 2 weeks' treatment in the RCT. The secondary inclusion criterion was patient requests for "a change to one of the other stretching protocols to see if I can achieve better pain control." Patients meeting either of these criteria were offered matched exercises/advice if they had not previously received this intervention. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA and McNemar tests compared outcomes during two consecutive time intervals: baseline to 2 weeks and 2 weeks to discharge. Dropouts were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Four patients from the matched group met the primary inclusion criterion of "unchanged" (none reported being worse); 10 additional patients requested alternative treatment for better pain control (secondary criterion). Eighty-five patients from the two unmatched treatment groups met all the inclusion criteria, and an additional 22 patients met only the secondary criterion. These patients were offered matched treatment, and 96 consented. Those reporting improvement or resolution of symptoms were 22 % in the first two weeks of unmatched care (during the RCT) compared to 84 % with matched care. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes occurred in all outcomes (p < 0.001) after receiving matched care, compared to clinically unimportant changes with previous unmatched care during the RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Poor outcomes from non-specific/unmatched exercise protocols appeared to reverse when patients with directional preference were given sub-group-matched, direction-specific exercises. Because of the limitations of our study design, replication with a control group and longer-term follow-up are required to validate the findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".