MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291894379 · doi:10.3126/ohjn.v2i1.47432

Effectiveness of Yoga-based Interventions on Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) – A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4291894379 on OpenAlexaff
Sujana Bista, Suman Raj Bista, Rakshya Khadka, Lisasha Poudel, Ganesh Gaihre, Vijay Sapkota

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Health Journal of Nepal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCambrian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyMindfulnessLow back painAnxietyMeditationQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionPopulationRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Alternative medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatrySurgeryNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LBP) is defined as the pain and stiffness above the inferior gluteal folds and below the costal margin. The LBP lasting for the duration of 12 weeks or more is considered chronic low back pain (CLBP). The age-standardized incidence rate of LBP observed in South Asia was 2,362.13 per 100,000 population. The global incidence of LBP increased by 50%, from 149,294,134.47 to 223,455,640.82 cases from 1990 to 2019 respectively. Studies reported that the yoga-based interventions reduces disability, pain, pain medicine, stress, anxiety, depression and negative emotions, and improves spinal flexibility, quality of life and positive emotions in patients with CLBP more effectively than usual care and physical exercise. Yoga appeared to be more effective than physical exercise in patients with CLBP which may be because of various aspects of yoga, such as maintaining the yoga postures, breath regulation, mindfulness, meditation, relaxation etc. which separated yoga from physical exercises. It is suggested that the government and public hospitals should take actions to employ the ancient science of yoga to cure the patients with CLBP to avoid side effects and complications.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne Health Journal of NepalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207