Effectiveness of deep tissue massage therapy, and supervised strengthening and stretching exercises for subacute or persistent disabling neck pain. The Stockholm Neck (STONE) randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of deep tissue massage, supervised strengthening and stretching exercises, and a combined therapy (exercise followed by massage) (index groups), with advice to stay active (control group). METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of 619 adults with subacute or persistent neck pain allocated to massage (n = 145), exercise (n = 160), combined therapy (n = 169) or advice (n = 147). Primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvements in neck pain intensity and pain-related disability based on adapted questions from the Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were perceived recovery and sickness absence. Outcomes were measured at seven, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS: We found improvement in pain intensity favouring massage and combined therapy compared to advice; at seven weeks (RR = 1.36; 95%CI:1.04-1.77) and 26 weeks (RR = 1.23; 95%CI:0.97-1.56); and seven (RR = 1.39; 95%CI:1.08-1.81) and 12 weeks (RR = 1.28; 95%CI:1.02-1.60) respectively, but not at later follow-ups. Exercise showed higher improvement of pain intensity at 26 weeks (RR = 1.31; 95%CI:1.04-1.65). Perceived recovery was higher in the index groups than in the advice group at all follow-ups. We found no consistent differences in pain related disability or sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, at 12-months follow-up, none of the index therapies were more effective than advice in terms of pain intensity in the long term or in terms of pain-related disability in the short or long term. However, the index therapies led to higher incidence of improvement in pain intensity in the short term, and higher incidence of favorable perceived recovery in the short and in the long term than advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01453590. Registered 3 July 2014.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".