MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283393917 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.016

Neuromechanical Responses to Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization: A Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4283393917 on OpenAlexafffund
Arnaud Lardon, Isabelle Pagé, François Nougarou, Martin Descarreaux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInnovation and Economic Development Trois RivièresUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsMedicineSMA*Spinal manipulationPhysical therapyCrossover studySpinal muscular atrophyManual therapyRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationRepeated measures designStatic stretchingLow back painRange of motionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effect of spinal manipulation (SMa) and spinal mobilization (SMo) on muscular responses, spinal stiffness, and segmental spinal pressure evoked pain in a population of participants with chronic middle back pain (MBP). METHODS: In a crossover randomized trial, 2 experienced chiropractors assessed whether volunteers were eligible for the protocol according to a list of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with MBP participated in 2 experimental sessions within 72 hours. During the first session, participants randomly received a SMa or SMo delivered by an apparatus using a servolinear motor. During the second session, the other modality was delivered. Spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain intensity outcomes were assessed before and after each therapy, and muscular responses were recorded during the treatment using surface electromyographic sensors. Signed-rank Wilcoxon tests for muscular responses and generalized model for repeated measure for spinal stiffness and pressure-provoked pain were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Among the 32 potential participants, 26 (mean age 29.9 [±9.14], 15 women) completed both sessions. Between-group differences were observed for the muscular response amplitude (P < .001), and indeed the normalized RMS muscular response was found to be higher during SMa than SMo. Similar results were observed for pressure-provoked pain intensity at the level of therapeutic modality application (P = .002) as a higher decrease in pain was found after SMa (47.9 [±22.8] to 36.6 [±23.7]) compared with SMo (47.2 [±23.2] to 45.5 [±24.3]). No between-group differences were found for spinal stiffness change, nor for terminal (P = .08) and global spinal stiffness (P = .06). CONCLUSION: In a controlled environment, spinal manipulation and mobilization generated different muscle responses and had different immediate effects on pressure-provoked pain intensity for participants with MBP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207