Effects of back exercises versus transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation on relief of pain and disability in operating room nurses with chronic non-specific LBP: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders related to working. Due to the nature of nursing work, this problem is often seen in nurses, including those who work in the operating rooms. Depending on the cause, there are various surgical and non-surgical methods to treat LBP. The present study was aimed to compare the effect of two therapeutic methods of back exercises and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on the disability and pain of operating room nurses with LBP. METHODS: In this clinical trial forty-four eligible operating room nurses (30 women, 14 men, mean age: 37.86 ± 6.74) with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomly assigned to back exercises (including the strengthening and stretching exercise (n = 22)) or TENS (n = 22) groups by permuted block randomization method. These interventions were performed in both groups three sessions of 15 min per week for 6 weeks. The McGill pain questionnaire for back pain and the Oswestry disability questionnaire for disability assessment were completed immediately before and after the interventions. RESULTS: After 6 weeks, the mean of pain and disability decreased significantly in both groups compared to the baseline. Based on the results, significant decreases in the pain score (mean difference (95% CI): - 8.95 (- 12.77 to - 5.14); P-value < 0.001) and disability score (mean difference (95% CI): - 8.73(- 12.42 to - 5.03); P-value < 0.001) were revealed in the back exercises group after the intervention compared to the baseline. In addition, after the intervention in TENS group, the mean pain intensity and disability showed significant decrease, respectively (mean difference (95% CI): - 16.18 (- 19.81 to - 12.55); P-value < 0.001; mean difference (95% CI): - 15.82 (- 19.24 to - 12.40); P-value < 0.001). After adjusting for the baseline values, the TENS group had a significantly higher pain score reduction than the back exercises group (mean difference (95% CI): - 4.23 (- 8.03 to - 0.44); P-value =0.030; Cohen's d = 0.81). In addition, TENS led to a significant more decrease in the disability scores compared to the back exercises (mean difference (95% CI): - 3.99 (- 7.35 to - 0.64); P-value =0.021; Cohen's d = 0.73). Furthermore, a statistically significant time by group interaction effect on pain and disability score was found (interaction p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pain and disability were improved in both groups following 18 intervention sessions. However, pain and disability were improved to a greater extent in the TENS group than in the back exercises group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials ( www.irct.ir ) on 03/02/2019 as IRCT20180408039227N1 .
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".