MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148991148 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090173

Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Low Back Pain in Physical Therapy: Do Patients Benefit?

2010· article· en· W2148991148 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineObservational studyPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleLow back painMEDLINECohort studyExternal validityPsychologyAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Various guidelines for the management of low back pain have been developed to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of care. Evidence that guideline-adherent care results in better health outcomes, however, is not conclusive. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to assess whether a higher percentage of adherence to the Dutch physical and manual therapy guidelines for low back pain is related to improved outcomes. The study further explored whether this relationship differs for the individual steps of the process of care and for distinct subgroups of patients. DESIGN: This was an observational prospective cohort study (2005-2006) in the Netherlands that included a sample of 61 private practice therapists and 145 patients. METHODS: Therapists recorded the process of care and the number of treatment sessions in Web-based patient files. Guideline adherence was assessed using quality indicators. Physical functioning was measured by the Dutch version of the Quebec Back Pain and Disability Scale, and average pain was measured with a visual analog scale. Relationships between the percentage of guideline adherence and outcomes of care were evaluated with regression analyses. RESULTS: Higher percentages of adherence were associated with fewer functional limitations (beta=-0.21, P=.023) and fewer treatment sessions (beta=-0.27, P=.005). LIMITATIONS: The relatively small self-selected sample might limit external validity, but it is not expected that the small sample greatly influenced the internal validity of the study. Larger samples are required to enable adequate subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that higher percentages of guideline adherence are related to better improvement of physical functioning and to a lower utilization of care. A proper assessment of the relationship between the process of physical therapy care and outcomes may require a comprehensive set of process indicators to measure guideline adherence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.375 · 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