The relative efficacy of chiropractic manipulative therapy compared to placebo in patients with plantar fasciitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative efficacy of chiropractic manipulative therapy as opposed to placebo ultrasound, in terms of objective and subjective clinical findings, in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. This was a randomised, controlled, clinical trial consisting of two groups. Group A received chiropractic manipulative therapy as their treatment protocol and Group B received placebo treatment in the form of detuned ultrasound as their treatment protocol. Each group consisted of fifteen subjects between the ages of 21 and 68 years who were randomly assigned to their respective groups. It is hypothesised that chiropractic manipulative therapy will be effective in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. Subjects diagnosed with plantar fasciitis were included in the study. The treatment regime consisted of a course of nine treatments spread over a three week time period with a follow-up consultation one month after the final treatment consultation. Subjective and objective measurements were taken at the initial, final and one-month follow-up consultations. Subjective data consisted of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical pain Rating Scale - 101 and the Foot Function Index. The objective data was collected by means of Algometer measurements. The data was analysed statistically using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney unpaired U-test for the categorical variables and the parametric two-sample unpaired t-test for the continuous variables for the inter-group comparison. For the intra-group comparison the non-parametric Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used for the categorical variables and the parametric twosample paired t-test was used for the continuous variables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".