A Randomized Trial Comparing Interventions in Patients with Lumbar Posterior Derangement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pretest/posttest study compared the outcomes of people with low back pain who were treated with exercises or joint mobilization. Thirty-one patients referred to physical therapy with a physician's diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy were initially recruited as subjects. All 31 patients were examined and treated by a physical therapist with 17 years of clinical experience. Following the initial examination, those subjects classified into the derangement category (n=25) were randomly assigned to a group that received joint mobilization (n=10) or a group that performed therapeutic exercises as described by the McKenzie method (n=15). The remaining six patients were not classified into the derangement category and were not included in the analysis. The subjects were also classified according to the Quebec Task Force (QTF) system. The patient's pain as reported on the verbal analog scale and the patient's perceived level of function as indicated by Oswestry scores were recorded at the initial evaluation and following the third physical therapy visit. The McKenzie group performed exercises that were based on their response to repeated movements and the mobilization group received manual techniques based on active and passive movements and passive intervertebral motion testing. All subjects were instructed in postural correction. Data were analyzed through the use of t-tests and correlation coefficients. Subjects who performed therapeutic exercise were found to have significantly greater decreases in pain level (p<.014) and significantly greater improvement in function (p<.032) as compared to the mobilization group. Low correlations were found in regard to QTF classification and the outcome measures. The results indicated that exercises based on repeated movements might be more beneficial in terms of pain reduction and recovery of function than joint mobilization in the early stages of recovery from lumbar disc derangement. The results also point toward the importance of including repeated movements as part of the lumbar evaluation to assist in the prescription of appropriate therapeutic exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".