Effectiveness of Specific Neck Stabilization Exercises or a General Neck Exercise Program for Chronic Neck Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of primary care patients with chronic neck pain, to determine whether specific neck stabilization exercises, in addition to general neck advice and exercise, provide better clinical outcome at 6 weeks than general neck advice and exercise alone. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial in 4 physical therapy departments. Seventy-four participants (mean age 51.3 yrs) were randomized to specific neck stabilization exercises with a general neck advice and exercise program (n = 37) or a general neck advice and exercise program alone (n = 37). They attended a 1-hour clinical examination, followed by a maximum of 4 treatment sessions. Assessments were undertaken at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. The primary outcome was the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Seventy-one (96%) participants received their allocated intervention. There was 91% followup at 6 weeks and 92% followup at 6 months. The mean (SD) 6-week improvement (reduction) in NPDS score was 10.6 (20.2) for the specific exercise program and 9.3 (15.7) for the general exercise program. There were no significant between-group differences in the NPDS at either 6 weeks or 6 months. For secondary outcomes, participants in the specific exercise group were less likely to be taking pain medication at 6-week followup (p = 0.02). There were no other significant between-group differences. CONCLUSION: Adding specific neck stabilization exercises to a general neck advice and exercise program did not provide better clinical outcome overall in the physical therapy treatment of chronic neck pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.011 | 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".