Treatment of low back pain: Second extended follow up of an original trial (NCT00600197) comparing a multidisciplinary group‐based rehabilitation program with oral drug treatment alone up to 30 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of the extended 30‐month follow‐up of an original trial (NCT00600197) which has been published in the Clinical Journal of Pain. Methods Seventy‐four percent (146/197) of the participants who had taken part in the original study, including 69 patients in the intervention group and 77 patients in the control group, were followed up to 30 months after intervention. The intervention group continued receiving monthly motivational consultation and booster classes plus oral medication but the other group received just medication. Data on measures from the Short Form 36 (SF‐36), Quebec Disability Scale (QDS) and Ronald Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) were collected at 3‐, 6‐, 12‐, 18‐, 24‐ and 30‐month follow‐ups and analyzed through repeated measures analysis of variance. Results The two groups were comparable regarding all baseline characteristics (P > 0.05) except for education level and mental health, which were better in the intervention group (P < 0.05). The two groups improved regarding all studied variables over time up to 30 months (P < 0.001). Moreover, the intervention group in comparison with the control group had consistently better outcomes regarding all variables. There were significant differences within each group by time in terms of mental health (P = 0.01) and disability measured through QDS (P = 0.005) and RDQ (P = 0.014). Conclusion The proposed multidisciplinary program could improve mental health and disability up to 30 months in chronic low back pain patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".