MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080479816 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.4507

Risk Factors for Persistent Problems Following Acute Whiplash Injury: Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2080479816 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Walton, Joy C. MacDermid, Anthony A. Giorgianni, Joanna C. Mascarenhas, Stephen C. West, Caroline A. Zammit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMeta-analysisMedicineWhiplash injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyPoison controlInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To update a previous review and meta-analysis on risk factors for persistent problems following whiplash secondary to a motor vehicle accident. BACKGROUND: Prognosis in whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) has become an active area of research, perhaps owing to the difficulty of treating chronic problems. A previously published review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors included primary sources up to May 2007. Since that time, more research has become available, and an update to that original review is warranted. METHODS: A systematic search of international databases was conducted, with rigorous inclusion criteria focusing on studies published between May 2007 and May 2012. Articles were scored, and data were extracted and pooled to estimate the odds ratio for any factor that had at least 3 independent data points in the literature. RESULTS: Four new cohorts (n = 1121) were identified. In combination with findings of a previous review, 12 variables were found to be significant predictors of poor outcome following whiplash, 9 of which were new (n = 2) or revised (n = 7) as a result of additional data. The significant variables included high baseline pain intensity (greater than 5.5/10), report of headache at inception, less than postsecondary education, no seatbelt in use during the accident, report of low back pain at inception, high Neck Disability Index score (greater than 14.5/50), preinjury neck pain, report of neck pain at inception (regardless of intensity), high catastrophizing, female sex, WAD grade 2 or 3, and WAD grade 3 alone. Those variables robust to publication bias included high pain intensity, female sex, report of headache at inception, less than postsecondary education, high Neck Disability Index score, and WAD grade 2 or 3. Three existing variables (preaccident history of headache, rear-end collision, older age) and 1 additional novel variable (collision severity) were refined or added in this updated review but showed no significant predictive value. CONCLUSION: This review identified 2 additional prognostic factors and refined the estimates of 7 previously identified factors, bringing the total number of significant predictors across the 2 reviews to 12. These factors can be easily identified in a clinical setting to provide estimates of prognosis following whiplash.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.013
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations231
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207