MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030436123 · doi:10.1186/s12998-020-00316-7

Immediate effects of a lumbar spine manipulation on pain sensitivity and postural control in individuals with nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

2020· article· en· W3030436123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jefferson Fagundes Loss, Luciano de Souza Silva, Iã Ferreira Miranda, Sandro Groisman, Edgar Santiago Wagner Neto, Catiane Souza, Cláudia Tarragô Candotti

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Manual Therapies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialSpinal manipulationLow back painLumbarCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationRepeated measures designMcGill Pain QuestionnaireVisual analogue scaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: According to the American Physical Therapy Association, there is strong evidence to show that vertebral mobilization and manipulation procedures can be used to improve spinal and hip mobility and reduce pain and incapacity in low back pain patients that fit the clinical prediction rule. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the immediate effects of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation on pain and postural control parameters in individuals with nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: This study used a participant-blinded and assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial involving a single session, in which 24 participants were randomly distributed into control (simulated manipulation) and intervention (HVLA lumbar manipulation) groups. The primary (pain: subjective pain intensity and pressure pain threshold) and secondary outcomes (postural control: ellipse area, center of pressure [COP] excursion, COP RMS velocity, and differences between the COP and center of projected gravity) were evaluated before and after the session using a numerical pain scale, algometer, and a force platform. For all outcomes, multiple mixed 2 (group) × 2 (time) ANOVAs were performed. RESULTS: For the subjective pain intensity, only time was significant as a main effect, where pre-intervention presented a greater value then post-intervention (F [1.44] = 4.377; p = 0.042; r = 0.30). For the pressure pain threshold no significant effect was found. For the postural control parameters, as a main effect, only the ellipse area was significantly greater in the control group (F [1.44] = 6.760; p = 0.013; effect size = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in subjective pain intensity, evaluated using a numerical scale, in both the intervention and control groups immediately after the intervention, suggesting that the spinal manipulation had a similar effect to the placebo procedure. No effect of HVLA lumbar manipulation was identified for postural control variables in either the intervention or control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02312778, registered at 14 September 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & Manual TherapiesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207