MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766920115 · doi:10.7205/milmed-d-17-00032

Effectiveness of Directional Preference to Guide Management of Low Back Pain in Canadian Armed Forces Members: A Pragmatic Study

2017· article· en· W2766920115 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anja Franz, Anaïs Lacasse, Ronald Donelson, Yannick Tousignant‐Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCanadian Armed ForcesUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyConfidence intervalLow back painPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Low-back pain (LBP) is a leading cause for disability in military personnel. Consequently, effective management strategies are required to maintaining operational capabilities. Physical therapy clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of directional preference (DP) to guide management. The effectiveness of this approach has not been tested in military personnel using a pragmatic study design. Pragmatic studies are ideal to inform clinicians and policymakers about the usefulness of proven interventions in real-life clinical conditions. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine, in clinical practice, the effectiveness of a management approach guided by DP vs. usual care (UC) physical therapy in Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members with LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A pragmatic study was conducted among 44 consecutive CAF members with LBP who received management guided by DP (n = 22) or UC (n = 22). Outcomes were pain intensity (primary outcome), pain location and frequency, perceived disability, medication use, perceived global effect (pain, function, overall status), work loss, and health care utilization. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed at 1-month and 3-months follow-up. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences favoring the DP group were observed for pain intensity (Δ 1 month: 1.9/10; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.97-2.89; Δ 3 months: 1.3/10; 95% CI: 0.35-2.31), pain location at 1 month (54.5% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.02) and 3 months (68.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.01), disability (Δ 1 month: 4.3/24; 95% CI: 2.12-6.38; Δ 3 months: 3.5/24; 95% CI; 1.59-5.33), perceived global effect at 1 month (pain: 86.4% vs. 57.1%; function: 81.8% vs. 47.6%; overall status: 86.4% vs. 57.1%) and 3 months (pain: 95.5% vs. 71.1%; overall status: 95.5% vs. 66.7%) with p values < 0.05, and improvement in work status at 3 months (54.5% vs. 23.8%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: DP-guided management appears more effective than UC physical therapy to reduce pain and improve function in CAF members with LBP. Rapid improvements and the patient's ability to self-manage may prove especially advantageous in deployed settings. Our findings are particularly useful to inform military policymakers and clinicians on optimal management for CAF members.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207