Bedrust en fysiotherapie geen meerwaarde bij acute lumbosacrale radiculaire pijn; een gerandomiseerde, klinische studie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object. To compare the efficacies of three non-surgical treatment strategies in patients with sciatica. Design. Randomised, open. Method. Patients younger than 60 years, with sciatica of less than one month's duration andnot yet treated with bed rest or physiotherapy, were prescribed: bed rest for seven days, physiotherapy for 4-8 weeks, or a control treatment (continuation of the normal daily activities as much as possible). Primary outcome measures were the degree of radicular pain (Visual Analogue Pain Scale, VAPS) and the severity of the impairment of daily activities (Quebec Disability Scale, QDS). Secondary outcome measures were the percentages of patients in whom the conservative management failed and surgery became necessary. The measures were assessed at baseline and during follow-up at one, two and six months. Results. A total of 250 patients (I50 men (60%) and I00 women (40%), average age 39 years) were included in the study. The mean differences in VAPS and QDS scores between bed rest and control treatment were 0.9 (95% CI: -8.7-I0.4) and -2.7 (-9.9-4.4) at two months and 0.5 (-8.4-9.3) and -2.7 (-I0.2-4.8) at 6 months. The mean differences in VAPS and QDS scores between physiotherapy and control treatment were -0.3 (-9.4-I0.0) and 0.0 (-7.2-7.3) at two months and -1.0 (-I0.0-8.0) and -0.7 (-8.4-6.9) at 6 months. Odds ratios for failure of conservative treatment and required surgery at six months versus control treatment were 1.6 (0.8-3.5 and 1.5 (0.7-3.6) for bed rest and 1.5 (0.7-3.2) and 1.2 (0.5-2.9) for physiotherapy. Conclusion. In patients with acute sciatica, bed rest and physiotherapy were no more effective than continuation of normal daily activities as much as possible, without specific treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".