Motorised lumbar traction in the management of low back pain with nerve root involvement: A feasibility study of effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nerve root involvement accompanies between 3-10% of Low Back Pain (LBP) and despite current guidelines, lumbar traction is a treatment still used by 40% of physiotherapists treating such patients. However its benefits remain to be established. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to compare two treatment protocols reflecting current clinical practice (manual therapy, exercise and advice, with or without traction) in the management of acute/sub acute low back pain with ‘nerve root’ involvement. RELEVANCE: Evidence for the effectiveness of lumbar traction remains inconclusive due to the poor methodological quality, inadequate treatment doses, and heterogeneous populations used in past studies. This study addressed these issues by investigating a homogeneous group (‘nerve root’) and used treatment parameters for traction established from a UK wide survey of current practice. This represents the first high quality trial reflecting current traction use. PARTICIPANTS: 30 patients with nerve root pain, with or without neurological signs, were recruited between March 2004 and February 2005 within Down Lisburn Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland. METHODS: A pragmatic RCT design was employed with patients randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: Manual therapy (manual therapy, exercises and the ‘Back Book’) or Lumbar traction (lumbar traction, manual therapy, exercises and the ‘Back Book’). Outcome measures used were the: McGill pain questionnaire, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, Short form 36, and the Acute LBP Screening Questionnaire; these were recorded at baseline, discharge, 3 and 6 months post-discharge. In addition, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, the percentage of overall improvement (patient’s perception), and changes in neurological and neurodynamic tests were recorded. ANALYSIS: Data recorded from the primary outcome measures, VAS scores and percentage overall improvement were considered interval level and analysed with parametric statistics: repeated measures ANOVA (within group changes) and the independent t-test (between group changes). RESULTS: 27 patients completed treatment with a loss of four patients at the 3 and 6 month follow up: data for 23 patients were analysed. ANOVA showed a significant improvement in pain and disability from baseline to all follow up points for both groups; however there was no significant difference between groups. Feasibility issues highlighted that recruitment, selection, and outcome measures were appropriate however a sample size calculation suggested that a large study would be unfeasible (n=1,975). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that both groups improved with treatment but that no additional benefit was achieved with the addition of lumbar traction to the package of care. IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates that a study with this subgroup of LBP is feasible; however in light of the sample size calculation some aspects of the design would need to be reconsidered prior to a fully powered pragmatic RCT
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 | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".