Results of a Multimodal Treatment Program for Patients With Chronic Symptoms After a Whiplash Injury of the Neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive case series pre- and post-treatment design, including a 6-month follow-up. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to document the improvements of patients with chronic symptoms after a "whiplash" injury of the neck, who attended a 4-week multimodal treatment program at the Rug AdviesCentra Nederland. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To the authors' knowledge, no studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment of chronic symptoms after whiplash injury. METHODS: Twenty-six patients who experienced Quebec type 1 or 2 lesions of the neck (whiplash) with persisting symptoms of longer than 6 months' duration participated in the study. The measures included were pain intensity (according to the visual analog scale), number of painful sites (determined by pain drawing), self-reported disability Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale; and symptoms of somatic and psychological distress and cognitive symptoms (according to selected Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 scales). Furthermore, objective outcome criteria were used regarding return to work, medication, and medical and paramedical treatment. Statistical and clinical significance of treatment results were both assessed. RESULTS: The patients' symptoms improved significantly on nearly all self-report measures. Their scores for objective outcome criteria reported during the 6-month follow-up evaluation were: complete return to work (65%); complete or partial return to work (92%); no use of analgesics in the past 6 months (58%); and no medical or paramedical treatments in the past 6 months (81%). CONCLUSION: These early results indicate that a multimodal treatment program has the potential to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic symptoms after a whiplash injury of the neck--a group of patients who have in the past been considered intractable or, at the very least, puzzling.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".