MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

2007· review· en· W4238126753 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Clarke, Maurits W. van Tulder, Stefan EI Blomberg, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Geert J. van der Heijden, Gert Brønfort, L.M. Bouter

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSciaticaMedicineTraction (geology)Physical therapyLow back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traction is used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often with other treatments. OBJECTIVES: To determine traction's effectiveness, compared to reference treatments, placebo, sham traction or no treatment for LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to October 2006, references in relevant reviews and personal files. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks duration), sub-acute (four to 12 weeks) or chronic (more than 12 weeks) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two authors. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (2206 patients; 1045 receiving traction). Five trials were considered high quality. For patients with mixed symptom patterns (acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica) there is: strong evidence of no statistically significant difference in outcomes between traction as a single treatment and placebo, sham or no treatment; moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; limited evidence of no significant difference in outcomes between a standard physical therapy program with or without continuous traction. For LBP patients with sciatica (with acute, sub-acute or chronic pain), there is conflicting evidence in several comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; different forms of traction. In other comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; the evidence is moderate for continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham or no treatment, and limited for light versus normal force traction. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of the available studies involving mixed groups of acute, sub-acute and chronic patients with LBP with and without sciatica were quite consistent, indicating that continuous or intermittent traction as a single treatment for LBP is not likely effective for this group. Traction for patients with sciatica cannot be judged effective at present either, due to inconsistent results and methodological problems in most studies. We conclude that traction as a single treatment for LBP is probably not effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Any future research on traction for patients with LBP should distinguish between symptom pattern and duration, and should be carried out according to the highest methodological standards.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.008

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations70
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207