Comparison of high velocity low amplitude manipulation and dry needle treatment in patients with nonspecific back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many treatment methods are used for nonspecific back pain. The superiority of these treatment methods has not been y demonstrated. In our study, we investigated the acute effects of dry needle and high velocity low amplitude (HVLA) manipulation after one-time administration in these patients.METHODS: The volunteers included in the HVLA group were all volunteers with a mean Body Mass Index of 23.20±5.160 years and 19.9242±2.01428. The volunteers included in the dry needling group had an average Body Mass Index of 23.00±4.546 years old and 22.2696±3.69481. Fifty percent of the individuals in both the HVLA and dry needling groups reported that they did not do sports.RESULTS: Individuals in the HVLA group performed sport 20% 2 days/week, 30% 3 days/week; dry needling group 10% 1 day/week, 30% 3 days/week and 10% 6 days/week. Twenty women were randomized into two groups. In the group changes in the HVLA group; Resting and night pain and Quebec scores decreased significantly (P<0.05) while SF36 scores increased significantly (P<0.05). In the dry needle group, activity pain and SF36 score decreased significantly (P<0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Needle and HVLA manipulation methods in nonspecific back pain are effective methods in acute period. HVLA has a more meaningful effect on quality of life. This may be that manual therapies increase the parasympathetic response on patients and a corresponding placebo effect. Further studies are needed on this subject.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".