MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3151506181 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249220

Are neuromuscular adaptations present in people with recurrent spinal pain during a period of remission? a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3151506181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valter Devecchi, Alison Rushton, Alessio Gallina, Nicola R Heneghan, Deborah Falla

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapySpinal manipulationNeck painTrunkPhysical medicine and rehabilitationManual therapyObservational studyLumbarLow back painInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of evidence supports the existence of neuromuscular changes in people with chronic spinal pain (neck and low back pain), yet it is unclear whether neuromuscular adaptations persist for people with recurrent spinal pain when in a period of remission. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the evidence on neuromuscular adaptations in people with recurrent spinal pain during a period of remission. Electronic databases, grey literature, and key journals were searched from inception up to the 4th of September 2020. Eligibility criteria included observational studies investigating muscle activity, spine kinematics, muscle properties, sensorimotor control, and neuromuscular performance in adults (≥ 18 years) with recurrent spinal pain during a period of remission. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was conducted per outcome domain. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed where possible. The overall strength of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines (GRADE). From 8292 records, 27 and five studies were included in a qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Very low level of evidence supports muscle activity changes in people with recurrent low back pain, especially greater co-contraction, redistribution of muscle activity, and delayed postural control of deeper trunk muscles. Reduced range of motion of the lumbar spine was also found. Meaningful conclusions regarding other outcome domains or people with recurrent neck pain could not be drawn. In conclusion, people with recurrent low back pain during a period of remission show muscle activity and spine kinematics adaptations. Future research should investigate the long-term impact of these changes, as well as adaptations in people with recurrent neck pain.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→