MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Matrix Rhythm Therapy versus Pilates on Pain, Lumbar Flexibility, Functional Impairments, and Pelvic Inclination in Chronic Low Back Pain

2022· article· en· W4285149328 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Divya M. Gohil, Devathi Kothari, Gaurang Baxi, Tushar Palekar

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Journal of Dr D Y Patil Vidyapeeth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineLow back painLumbarOswestry Disability IndexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFlexibility (engineering)Chronic painMcGill Pain QuestionnaireRating scaleBack painVisual analogue scalePsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A BSTRACT Introduction: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disease burden globally. Matrix Rhythm Therapy (MRT) is based on rhythmic micro-oscillations of muscle tissue by the action of mechano-magnetic alternating fields. Pilates exercises have been shown to be helpful in low back pain. This study was conducted to compare the effects of MRT and Pilates exercises on chronic low back pain, lumbar flexibility, functional impairments, and pelvic inclination in chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods: Ethical clearance was obtained by ethical committee of Dr. D. Y. Patil Physiotherapy, Pimpri, Pune. 50 patients diagnosed with chronic low back pain were selected as per inclusion criteria after taking informed consent. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A (n = 25) received MRT. Group B (n = 25) were given Pilates exercise. Both groups received treatment thrice a week for two weeks. Duration of 45 min. Outcome measures were assessed for both groups at the beginning and end of the study. Outcome measures included Numerical Pain Rating Scale for pain, Modified-modified schober’s test for lumbar flexibility, pelvic inclination using an inclinometer, and Oswestry Low Back Disabaility Questionnaire for functional impairments. Data were analysed using Winpepi. Results: For all outcome measures, a highly significant improvement (p < 0.001) was seen in Group A, a significant improvement (p < 0.005) was seen in group B. Discussion: Pain, restricted movements, reduced flexibility, and pelvic inclination are the consequences of systemic and local disturbances in the logistics of the living processes due to chronic pain in low back region. MRT and Pilates, both individually are effective in treating the same. Conclusion: Both Groups showed significant improvements in patients with CLBP. However, the findings in MRT group highly statistically significant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Journal of Dr D Y Patil VidyapeethSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207