A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Educational Intervention to Prevent the Chronic Pain of Whiplash Associated Disorders Following Rear-End Motor Vehicle Collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Concealed allocation, multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of an educational video in the tertiary prevention of persistent WAD symptoms following rear-end motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) are an important and costly health problem. There is a lack of high quality evidence surrounding efficacy of treatments for WAD. Existing research supports active interventions and early return to regular activities. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting to four tertiary care emergency departments following rear-end MVCs were eligible. Following informed consent, patients were allocated, using central randomization, to receive an educational video plus usual care or usual care alone. The video provided reassurance, and advice about posture, return to regular activities, exercises, and pain-relief methods. Data were collected by telephone using standardized questionnaires. The primary outcome was presence of Persistent WAD Symptoms at 24 weeks postinjury, based on the frequency and severity of neck, shoulder, or upper back pain. The absolute difference in proportion of patients with persistent WAD symptoms and rate ratios were calculated. Changes in pain scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The intervention (n = 206) and control (n = 199) groups were similar at baseline (mean age 38.4 years; 64% female). Overall, the proportion of subjects with Persistent WAD Symptoms decreased from 89.1% at baseline to 33.6% at 24 weeks after injury. At 24 weeks, the proportion of subjects with persistent WAD symptoms in the intervention group was 7.9% (95% CI, -2.0, 17.8) lower than the control group. The median improvement in pain score at 24 weeks was 3 for the intervention group and 2 for the control group (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The presence of persistent WAD symptoms following simple rear-end MVCs was high in this sample. The video group demonstrated a trend toward less severe WAD symptoms. We recommend evaluating other educational interventions that could reduce WAD symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".