MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141950816 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2014.05.004

Prophylactic stretching is unlikely to prevent nocturnal leg cramps

2014· letter· en· W2141950816 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Garrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMuscle crampNocturnalPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prophylactic stretching is unlikely to prevent nocturnal leg crampsIn order to reduce the frequency of nocturnal leg cramps, leg stretching before sleep is commonly recommended.A little over a year ago in this journal, Hallegraeff et al 1 authored the first randomised controlled trial to support this practice -demonstrating 1.2 fewer cramps per night and less-severe cramp pain in the stretching group, compared to those receiving no treatment.Missing from the analysis of this trial, however, was an explanation of why (despite similar recruitment methods and similar inclusion/exclusion criteria) the cramp rate in the control group differed so dramatically from what had been observed in other randomised trials.Cochrane systematic reviews of both quinine (13 trials with 952 subjects) and magnesium (4 trials with 213 subjects) for the prophylaxis of rest cramps show mean cramp rates in placebo controls of 4.4 and 4.35 cramps/week.2,3 In contrast, the control group cramp rate in the trial by Hallegraeff et al was 16.8 cramps/ week (2.4 cramps/night) -a cramp rate that is nearly fourfold higher.Is the population from which these subjects were derived unique?Were there extreme outliers skewing the distribution?Can we be confident of the diagnosis?An additional problem in interpreting the results of the trial by Hallegraeff et al 1 is the comparison of an intervention group to unblinded controls who were offered no treatment.This is problematic because there is potential subjectivity in the reporting of cramps.For example, is a brief cramp worth reporting?Was a long cramp episode really one single cramp, or multiple individual cramps occurring in close succession?Given that the subjects in this trial were unblinded and can be assumed to have had different expectations of potential benefit (an intervention versus no treatment), might those expectations have influenced the reporting of cramps?The only other randomised controlled trial that has evaluated prophylactic stretch is by Coppin et al, 4 in which 191 quinine users used either bedtime stretch or control (ie, leg movements that did Journal of Physiotherapy 60 (2014) 174-175

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0370.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of physiotherapySame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207