Management of Work-Related Low Back Pain: A Population-Based Survey of Physical Therapists
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physical therapy often is used in the management of work-related low back pain (LBP). Little information, however, is known about the types of interventions used by physical therapists in the management of this condition. The objective of this study was to describe the interventions used by physical therapists in the treatment of workers with acute or subacute LBP, with or without radiating pain below the knee. SUBJECTS: Clinical management questionnaires for workers without and with radiating pain were returned by 190 and 139 physical therapists, respectively. METHODS: For each treatment session, therapists recorded treatment objectives, interventions, and education provided to 2 workers with LBP, 1 with radiating pain and 1 without radiating pain. RESULTS: The majority of physical therapists used stretching and strengthening exercises, spinal mobilization, soft tissue mobilization and massage, manual traction, posture correction, interferential current, ultrasound, heat, and functional activities education. With radiating pain, the majority of the therapists also used cold and the McKenzie approach. Treatment objectives pursued by the majority of the therapists were decrease of pain, increase of range of motion, increase of muscle strength (force-generating capacity of muscle), decrease of muscle tension, and worker education. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists use an array of interventions with workers with LBP. The effectiveness of most interventions reported has not been well studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it