MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203568015 · doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000390

The Effect of Rigid Spinal Orthosis on the Muscular Capacity of Patients With Low Back Pain - A 3-Month Follow-up Study

2021· article· en· W3203568015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana Rimaud, Naomi Rieffel, I. Fayolle-Minon, Philippe Vedreine, Éric Ebermeyer, J.-F. Salmochi, O. Jacquin, Emmanuel Dye, Clément Mazel, P. Calmels

Bibliographic record

VenueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual analogue scaleMedicinePhysical therapyLow back painTest (biology)LumbarPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction In chronic low back pain, the use of lumbar orthosis treatment is not part of general recommendations due to a lack of supporting evidence. However, interest in segmental immobilization at the mechanical and postural level is still current in practice, with, however, the belief of negative effects on muscular capacity. The objective of our study was to assess the evolution of muscle capacity after wearing custom-made rigid corset in patients with chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods This is a multicenter study in patients with chronic low back pain, for which the wearing of a rigid postural immobilization corset for 3 months was prescribed. Twenty-two patients completed all follow-up assessments at baseline, 45 days, and 3 months. Evaluations included Biering-Sørensen test, Shirado test, chair test, hand/ground test, lateral inclination test, Quebec scale, and visual analog scale. Results The results revealed a significant improvement of Biering-Sørensen test after 3 months (37.0 ± 53.6 seconds at D0, 41.3 ± 51.7 seconds at D45, and 53.2 ± 60.5 seconds at D90; P < 0.05), in hand/ground distance (21.8 ± 28.5 cm at D0, 15.5 ± 17.8 cm at D45, and 12.2 ± 15.5 cm at D90; P < 0.05), in disability based on the Quebec questionnaire (0.52 ± 0.21 at D0, 0.45 ± 0.19 at D45, and 0.39 ± 0.19 at D90; P < 0.05), and significant reductions in visual analog scale measures of pain (6.0 ± 1.7 at D0, 3.7 ± 1.7 at D45, and 2.7 ± 1.9 at D90; P < 0.05). Conclusions This study shows that the wearing of a rigid orthosis does not alter the muscular endurance capacities of the trunk muscles. In view of the results, wearing a rigid orthosis may be an alternative to treating chronic low back pain. It does not induce muscle loss and may even contribute to motor disinhibition, resulting in improved spinal mobility and functional abilities. Clinical Relevance The common belief that wearing a spinal orthosis leads to muscle loss should no longer be an obstacle to its prescription since it helps to maintain muscle capacity and reduces 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207