Study protocol: multimodal physiotherapy as an add-on treatment to botulinum neurotoxin type A therapy for patients with cervical dystonia: DysPT-multi—a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomized, controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) is currently the best therapeutic option in the treatment for cervical dystonia (CD). Additional treatments like physiotherapy (PT) may even improve the results of the BoNT injection with type A (BoNT-A), but there are no definite recommendations. In the last few years, some studies showed tendencies for PT as an adjuvant therapy to benefit. However, high-quality studies are required. METHODS: This study is a multicentre, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of a multimodal PT program compared to a nonspecific cupping therapy, additionally to the BoNT-A therapy. Two hundred participants will be assigned into the multimodal PT plus BoNT intervention arm or the BoNT plus cupping arm using randomization. Primary endpoint is the total Score of Toronto Western Spasmodic Rating Scale (TWSTRS). Secondary endpoints are the mobility of the cervical spine (range of motion, ROM), the TWSTRS subscales, and the quality of life (measured by questionnaires: CDQ-24 and SF-36). Patients will be single-blind assessed every 3 months according to their BoNT injection treatment over a period of 9 months. DISCUSSION: The study aims to determine the effectiveness and therefore potential benefit of an additional multimodal physiotherapy for standardized treatment with BoNT-A in patients with CD, towards the BoNT-therapy alone. This largest randomized controlled trial in this field to date is intended to generate missing evidence for therapy guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Study Register before the start of the patient recruitment ( DRKS00020411 ; date: 21.01.2020).
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.012 |
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".