MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017503316 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001310

Herbal Medicine for Low Back Pain

2015· review· en· W2017503316 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Gagnier, Hanna N. Oltean, Maurits W. van Tulder, Brian Berman, Claire Bombardier, Christopher Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological Properties
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow back painTraditional medicineBack painAlternative medicinePain medicineMEDLINEPhysical therapyAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for nonspecific low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many people with chronic LBP use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in treating people with LBP. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006. METHODS: We searched numerous electronic databases up to September 2014; checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this area. We included RCTs examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute, or chronic nonspecific LBP. The interventions were herbal medicines that we defined as plants used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Two review authors assessed risk of bias, GRADE criteria (GRADE 2004), and CONSORT compliance and a random subset were compared with assessments by a third individual. Two review authors assessed clinical relevance and resolved any disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2050 participants) were included. Capsicum frutescens (cayenne) reduces pain more than placebo. Although Harpagophytum procumbens (devil's claw), Salix alba (white willow bark), Symphytum officinale L. (comfrey), Solidago chilensis (Brazilian arnica), and lavender essential oil also seem to reduce pain more than placebo, evidence for these substances was of moderate quality at best. No significant adverse events were noted within the included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Additional well-designed large trials are needed to test these herbal medicines against standard treatments. In general, the completeness of reporting in these trials was poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations119
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological PropertiesFrench-language works237,207