Aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education versus aquatic exercise alone for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a combination of aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education with aquatic exercise alone in chronic low back pain patients. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinic. SUBJECTS: Sixty-two chronic low back pain patients were randomly allocated to receive aquatic exercise and pain neurophysiology education (n = 30) or aquatic exercise alone (n = 32). INTERVENTIONS: Twelve sessions of a 6-week aquatic exercise programme preceded by 2 sessions of pain neurophysiology education. Controls received only 12 sessions of the 6-week aquatic exercise programme. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale) and functional disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale) at the baseline, 6 weeks after the beginning of the aquatic exercise programme and at the 3 months follow-up. Secondary outcome was kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia). RESULTS: Fifty-five participants completed the study. Analysis using mixed-model ANOVA revealed a significant treatment condition interaction on pain intensity at the 3 months follow-up, favoring the education group (mean SD change: -25.4± 26.7 vs -6.6 ± 30.7, P < 0.005). Although participants in the education group were more likely to report perceived functional benefits from treatment at 3 months follow-up (RR=1.63, 95%CI: 1.01-2.63), no significant differences were found in functional disability and kinesiophobia between groups at any time. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings support the provision of pain neurophysiology education as a clinically effective addition to aquatic exercise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".