The Effectiveness of Multimodal Care for Soft Tissue Injuries of the Lower Extremity: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of soft tissue injuries of the lower extremity. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We included studies with a low risk of bias in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We screened 6794 articles. Six studies had a low risk of bias and addressed the following: plantar heel pain (n = 2), adductor-related groin pain (n = 1), and patellofemoral pain (n = 3). The evidence suggests that multimodal care for the management of persistent plantar heel pain may include mobilization and stretching exercise. An intensive, clinic-based, group exercise program (strengthening, stretching, balance, agility) is more effective than multimodal care for the management of adductor-related groin pain in male athletes. There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of multimodal care for the management of persistent patellofemoral pain. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining multimodal care for the management of other soft tissue injuries of the lower extremity. CONCLUSION: A multimodal program of care for the management of persistent plantar heel pain may include mobilization and stretching exercise. Multimodal care for adductor-related groin pain is not recommended based on the current evidence. There is inconclusive evidence to support the use of multimodal care for the management of persistent patellofemoral pain.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".