Retention of Blinding at Follow-Up in a Randomized Clinical Study Using a Sham-Control Cervical Manipulation Procedure for Neck Pain: Secondary Analyses From a Randomized Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Participants in clinical trials of spinal manipulation have not been rigorously blinded to group assignment. This study reports on secondary analyses of the retention of participant blinding beyond the immediate posttreatment time frame following a single-session, randomized clinical study. A novel control cervical manipulation procedure that has previously been shown to be therapeutically inert was contrasted with a typical manipulation procedure. METHODS: A randomized clinical study of a single session of typical vs sham-control manipulation in patients with chronic neck pain was conducted. Findings of self-reported group registration at 24 to 48 hours posttreatment were computed. The Blinding Index (BI) of Bang et al was then applied to both the immediate and post-24- to 48-hour results. RESULTS: Twenty-four to 48 hours after treatment, 94% and 22% of participants in the typical and control groups, respectively, correctly identified their group assignment. When analyzed with the BI of Bang et al, the immediate posttreatment BI for the group receiving a typical manipulation was 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 0.47); for the group receiving a control manipulation, it was 0.19 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.43). The BI at post-24 hours was as follows: typical = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) and control = -0.34 (95% CI, -0.58 to -0.11). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the novel sham-control cervical manipulation procedure may be effective in blinding sham group allocation up to 48 hours posttreatment. It appears that, at 48 hours posttreatment, the modified form of the typical cervical manipulation was not. The sham-control procedure appears to be a promising procedure for future clinical trials.
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 | 0.194 | 0.257 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".