La lombalgie aigue commune : essai prospectif randomisé contrôlé évaluant l’efficacité d’un document écrit d’information sur le maintien des activités habituelles à 3 mois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low back pain (LBP) represents a major cause of activity limitation in the world. The benefit of written information in addition to oral information has been demonstrated in acute LBP management, but the available documents are often poorly adapted in primary care.Objective: To test the effectiveness of a new patient information leaflet combining information about acute LBP and home reproducible exercises, on sustaining daily life activities at 3 months. Method: Cluster-randomized controlled prospective trial. Patients’ recruitment in Isere between May and December 2016 by general practitioners randomly allocated in 2 groups: an intervention group with the patient information leaflet, and a control one. A sample size of 100 patients was required, each general practitioner was asked to include 6 patients. Statistical analysis tests were: Chi2, Student, and Fisher.The main outcome measure was the evolution of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) scores at baseline and 3 months compared in the 2 groups of patients. Results: The 26 physicians recruited 81 patients, 44 of whom had received the information leaflet. After drop outs and patients lost to follow up, 60 patients remained (30 in each group). The evolution of QBPDS scores showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p= 0.28). Conclusion: The trial could not demonstrate at 3 months the effectiveness of our new leaflet on sustaining daily life activities. The design of this trial should be reenacted with a bigger sample.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".