The short term effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation as compared to piroxicam administration in the treatment of chronic cervical facet syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For neck pain, the first-line treatment of allopathic physicians is usually the prescription on non-steroidal ant-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), whereas the firstline treatment of chiropractic physicians is usually cervical manipulation. The literature shows that both chiropractic manipulation alone and NSAIDs alone are effective for the treatment of cervical facet syndrome, with chiropractic manipulation being much safer than the use of NSAIDs. Furthermore, patients that receive chiropractic care have been shown to generally be much more satisfied than those that receive conventional medical care. The aim of this study was to determine the short-term effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation as compared to Piroxicam administration in the treatment of chronic cervical facet syndrome. The study design that was chosen was that of a comparative clinical trial. Forty consecutive patients diagnosed with chronic facet syndrome of the cervical spine were randomly assigned to either the manipulation group or the NSAID group (twenty patients in each group). Each patient in group A received manipulative therapy of the cervical spine on three consecutive days. Each patient in group B received 40 mg of Adco Piroxicam on the first two days of treatment, and 20 mg daily for the remainder of the seven day treatment period. The patients were assessed by means of objective and subjective data obtained before each consultation on days 1, 3 and 7. The objective data was gathered from algometric pressure-pain threshold readings over the involved facet joint. The subjective information was obtained from the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale - 101 and the CMCC Neck Disability Index, as well as the patients perceived improvement which was recorded as a percentage on days 3 and 7.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".