MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139050087 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20120457

Multifidus and Paraspinal Muscle Group Cross-Sectional Areas of Patients With Low Back Pain and Control Patients: A Systematic Review With a Focus on Blinding

2013· review· en· W2139050087 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesEuropean Commission
KeywordsBlindingMedicineLow back painConfidence intervalSample size determinationAsymptomaticPhysical therapyPopulationMeta-analysisSurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated differences in paraspinal muscle morphology between patients with low back pain (LBP) and control patients. However, inconsistencies in the results of some of these studies may limit generalizations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies evaluating paraspinal muscle morphology in patients with LBP and control patients, with a focus on the effects of blinding. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed with the use of relevant databases. Study quality was evaluated by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. STUDY SELECTION: Case-control studies investigating paraspinal muscle size between patients with LBP and control patients who were healthy were included. Studies that compared paraspinal muscle size between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides of patients with unilateral LBP also were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies investigating the same outcome-at the same spinal level and for the same muscle and population-were pooled. Mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies were included. With 1 exception, all pooled results were significantly different statistically between groups, suggesting that paraspinal muscles are smaller in patients with chronic LBP than in control patients and on the symptomatic side of patients with chronic unilateral LBP. In patients with acute unilateral LBP, there was no significant difference between sides. A qualitative examination demonstrated a trend toward an increased effect size when outcome assessors were unblinded. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this review include the small number of studies included and their small sample size. Misclassification of blinding status may have occurred when the study did not report blinding status. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that paraspinal muscles are significantly smaller in patients with chronic LBP than in control patients. Although no definite conclusion could be taken as to the effects of blinding, future imaging studies should consider the use of blinded outcome assessors.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · 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