Efficacy of Postural and Neck-Stabilization Exercises for Persons with Acute Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials in the literature to assess the efficacy of neck stabilization and postural exercises on pain, neck range of motion, and time off work in adults with acute whiplash-associated disorders. METHODS: Electronic databases, reference lists of relevant Cochrane reviews, reference lists of studies selected for inclusion, and tables of contents of relevant journals were systematically searched for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Because of the heterogeneity of the interventions, a qualitative synthesis was performed using "levels of evidence" as recommended by van Tulder et al. RESULTS: Eight studies representing five clinical trials were selected for inclusion. Two trials were graded as high quality, two as moderate quality, and one as low quality. Many of these studies had mixed results, demonstrating significant differences on some outcome measures but not on others. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence to support the use of postural exercises for decreasing pain and time off work in the treatment of patients with acute whiplash-associated disorders. However, no evidence exists to support the use of postural exercises for increasing neck range of motion. There is conflicting evidence in support of neck stabilization exercises in the treatment of patients with acute whiplash-associated disorders.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".