MECHANICAL TRACTION FOR MECHANICAL NECK DISORDERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether mechanical traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review up to September 2004 of randomized controlled trials and used pre-defined levels of evidence for qualitative analysis. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data abstraction and methodological quality assessment. Using a random effects model, relative risk and standardized mean differences were calculated. The reasonableness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. In the absence of heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 10 selected trials, one study was of high quality. Our review revealed low-quality trials for mechanical neck disorders, showing evidence of benefit favouring intermittent traction for pain reduction. Continuous traction showed no significant difference for defined outcomes. CONCLUSION: Inconclusive evidence for continuous and intermittent traction exists due to trial methodological quality. Two clinical conclusions may be drawn, one favouring the use of intermittent traction and the other not supporting the use of continuous traction. Attention to research design flaws and description of traction characteristics is needed.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it