Mechanical Low Back Pain: Secular Trend and Intervention Topics of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on mechanical low back pain (MLBP) rehabilitation, the secular (i.e., long-term) trend, and the distribution of interventions studied. METHODS: All included RCTs were extracted from all Cochrane systematic reviews focusing on rehabilitation therapies for MLBP, and two independent reviewers screened and analyzed the information on interventions. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, the data set consisted of 196 RCTs published between 1961 and 2010. The number of RCTs published increased consistently over time: 2 trials (1% of the total) were published in 1961-1970, 10 (5%) in 1971-1980, 41 (21%) in 1981-1990, 68 (35%) in 1991-2000, and 75 (38%) in 2001-2010. The intervention of interest in the majority of RCTs was exercise therapy (115/399; 29%), followed by spinal manipulation therapies (60/399; 15%). CONCLUSION: The number of RCTs focusing on MLBP has risen over time; of all interventions studied, exercise therapy has attracted the most research interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.369 | 0.702 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".