MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900919048 · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000452

Lumbar stabilisation exercises versus back endurance-resistance exercise training in athletes with chronic low back pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2900919048 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Henrique Nowotny, Mariene Guizeline Calderon, Pablo Eduardo Albuquerque de Souza, Andreo Fernando Aguiar, Guillaume Léonard, Bruno Mazziotti Oliveira Alves, César Ferreira Amorim, Rubens Alexandre da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFundação Nacional de Desenvolvimento do Ensino Superior ParticularGlobal Affairs CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversidade Norte do ParanáCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineAthletesBlindingLow back painLumbarPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTrunkPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is an important disorder in athletes that may negatively affect their performance in competitions. The literature usually recommends physiotherapy based on exercises for back pain management in athletes. Recent evidence suggests that interventions based on lumbar muscle stabilisation exercises (LMSE) and back endurance-resistance exercises (BERE) may improve back pain and function performance. However, it is still unclear which type of exercise is more effective for the treatment of CLBP in athletes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of LMSE versus BERE in athletes with CLBP. DESIGN: The study is a 2-arm, prospectively registered, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The physical therapy clinical and biomechanics laboratory of the UNOPAR University. PARTICIPANTS: 32 male athletes with CLBP, age between 18 and 40 years old, recruited from the local community. INTERVENTION: An 8-week intervention programme will be carried out with LMSE s versus BERE. MEASUREMENTS: Trunk neuromuscular patterns during balance tasks (unipodal and over a ball) using electromyography and force platform parameters, pain, disability, fear and avoidance will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline and at follow-up after 8 weeks of intervention period. LIMITATIONS: The absence of blinding intervention and the exclusion of female athletes, seated sports and swimmers will affect the internal and external validity of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will elucidate which of these two interventions promote better results in trunk neuromuscular pattern, back pain and function in male athletes with CLBP.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.008

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→