MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165457254 · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1009-2

Effects of a prehabilitation program on patients’ recovery following spinal stenosis surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2015· article· en· W2165457254 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrée-Anne Marchand, Margaux Suitner, Julie O’Shaughnessy, Claude-Édouard Châtillon, Vincent Cantin, Martin Descarreaux

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPrehabilitationRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialLumbar spinal stenosisLumbarQuality of life (healthcare)Spinal stenosisMinimal clinically important differencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationLow back painSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent condition in adults over the age of 65 and often leads to deconditioning. Although the benefits of surgery outweigh those of conservative approaches, physical rehabilitation may be used to improve function and to minimize the risk of persistent dysfunction. This study protocol was designed to establish the feasibility of a full-scale randomized controlled trial and to assess the efficacy of an active preoperative intervention program on the improvement of clinical parameters and functional physical capacity in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS/DESIGN: Forty patients will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of the 2 treatment arms: 6 weeks supervised preoperative rehabilitation program (experimental group) or hospital standard preoperative management (control group). The intervention group will be trained three times per week, with each session aiming to improve strength, muscular endurance, spinal stabilization and cardiovascular fitness. Intensity and complexity of exercises will be gradually increased throughout the sessions, depending on each participant's individual progress. Primary outcomes are level of low back disability and level of pain. Secondary outcomes include the use of pain medication, quality of life, patient's global impression of change, lumbar extensor muscles endurance, maximum voluntary contraction of lumbar flexor and extensor muscles, maximum voluntary contraction of knee extensors, active lumbar ranges of motion, walking abilities, and cardiovascular capacity. Both the primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline, at the end of the training program (6 weeks after baseline evaluation for control participants), and at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: This study will inform the design of a future large-scale trial. Improvements of physical performances before undergoing lumbar surgery may limit functional limitations occurring after a surgical intervention. Results of this study will provide opportunity to efficiently improve spinal care and advance our knowledge of favorable preoperative strategies to optimize postoperative recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials registry NCT02258672 , 10 February 2014.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.007

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207