MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

2 International guideline for the management of acute low back pain in rowers – a proposal for an athlete care pathway

2017· article· en· W2779427206 on OpenAlex
John S. Thornton, Anders Vinther, Fiona Wilson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRowingMedicineGuidelinePhysical therapyAthletesIncidence (geometry)Low back painPopulationMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3></h3> It is estimated that up to 84 percent of adults have low back pain (LBP) at some time in their lives, with the 12 month incidence reported as 3%–18% worldwide. In the sport of rowing, between 32%–53% of athletes will experience LBP within a given year while point prevalence in adolescent rowers may be as high as 65% and 53% in males and females respectively. The lumbar spine is the most frequently injured region, accounting for up to 53% of all reported injuries amongst rowers with an incidence between 1.5 and 3.7/1000 hour of rowing and associated training. For many individuals, episodes of back pain are self-limited. The effect on rowers’ sporting careers, life-long disability and chronic pain, however, is unknown. Anecdotally, it is the injury most likely to be career-ending for rowers. There is no common strategy to address LBP in rowers despite evidence that specific information on management is desired by the rowing population worldwide. Thus, it is proposed that a consensus statement outlining best practice in the management of rowing LBP is produced and disseminated within the international rowing and sports medicine communities. An evidence-based approach using recent advances in understanding of factors associated with injury onset (including exposure, biomechanics and other intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors) is leading to the creation of the new guideline using both expert knowledge and the current evidence. A detailed literature search was conducted, reviewing the incidence/prevalence, risk factors, diagnosis and management of LBP in rowers. Discussions are being held between the authors and key experts (clinicians and researchers) in the international community to assimilate information and highlight key issues. To date, key research findings for optimal prevention and management include: type and mode of ergometer use, optimal lumbopelvic rhythm (moving through hips) and optimal loading including adequate recovery. The creation of this new guideline for management of LBP in rowers is designed to aid readers through diagnosis, investigations and management of LBP with a longer version for clinicians; it aims to be both user friendly and informative. This presentation will outline the steps taken and findings of this novel approach to reach consensus on an Athlete Care Pathway for LBP in rowers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.346 · 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