MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028349833 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181c212ee

Is a Behavioral Graded Activity Program More Effective Than Manual Therapy in Patients With Subacute Neck Pain?

2010· article· en· W2028349833 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Pool, Raymond Ostelo, Dirk L. Knol, Johan W.S. Vlaeyen, L.M. Bouter, Henrica C. W. de Vet

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersVrije Universiteit AmsterdamZonMw
KeywordsMedicineNeck painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a behavioral graded activity program with manual therapy in patients with subacute (4-12 weeks) nonspecific neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is a common complaint, for which many conservative therapies are available in primary care. There is strong evidence for manual therapy in combination with exercises. Psychosocial factors are also believed to play a role in chronic pain. The evidence of the effectiveness of a program focused on these factors is still unknown. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, involving 146 patients with subacute nonspecific neck pain. The BGA program can be described as a time-contingent increase in activities from baseline toward predetermined goals. Manual therapy consists of specific spinal mobilization techniques and exercises. Primary outcomes were global perceived effect, the Numerical Rating Scale for pain and the Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the 4 Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire, and the Pain Coping and Cognition List. Measurements were carried out at baseline and 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Data are analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using multilevel analysis. RESULTS: The success rates at 52 weeks, based on the GPE were 89.4% for the BGA program and 86.5% for MT. This difference was not statistically significant. For pain and disability, a difference was found in favor of the BGA program; mean difference for pain = 0.99 (95% CI 0.15-1.83) and mean difference for NDI = 2.42 (95% CI 0.52-4.32). All other differences between the interventions in the primary and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Based on this trial it can be concluded that there are only marginal, but not clinically relevant, differences between a BGA program and MT.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations62
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207