The effectiveness of spinal manipulation compared to passive oscillatory mobilization in the management of chronic mechanical thoracic spine pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation compared to passive oscillatory mobilization in order to evaluate the more effective treatment in the management of chronic mechanical thoracic spine pain. It was hypothesized that spinal manipulation and passive oscillatory mobilization would both be effective in the treatment of chronic mechanical thoracic spine pain. It was further postulated that spinal manipulation would be comparatively more effective than passive oscillatory mobilization in terms of objective and subjective clinical findings. This randomised controlled clinical trial consisted of a study population of 60, obtained by convenience sampling. Those patients diagnosed as suffering from chronic mechanical thoracic spine pain were randomly allocated to two groups of 30 each. One group received spinal manipulation and the other group passive oscillatory mobilization on the affected segments. Both groups of patients received 5 treatments over a two-week period. The subjective data was obtained by the use of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale-101 Questionnaire. These were filled in by the patient before the first, third and fifth treatments. The objective data was acquired through the use of the algometer. Readings were taken before and after the first, third and fifth treatments. Intra-group analysis of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was done using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. The paired t-test was used for the Numerical Pain Rating Scale -101 Questionnaire and the Algometer Readings (intra-group analysis). Inter-group analysis of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was done using the Mann Whitney unpaired Utest. The unpaired t-test was used for the Numerical Pain Rating Scale-l 0 I Questionnaire and the Algometer Readings (inter-group analysis). a was set at a 0.05 level of significance. The results were illustrated by means of tables and
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".