Comparative Effectiveness of Sacroiliac Belt versus Lumbar Orthosis Utilization on Nonspecific Low Back Pain: a Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Back braces are commonly utilized in the management of low back pain (LBP). Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate (1) user satisfaction with a sacroiliac belt versus a lumbar orthosis and (2) the effect of a sacroiliac belt versus a lumbar orthosis on pain, functional disability status, and analgesic use for subjects with subacute or chronic non-specific LBP. Methods: This is a prospective randomized crossover study. For the two-week study period, control group subjects wore the Horizon 627 Lumbar Brace ("lumbar orthosis") during the first week and the Serola Sacroiliac Belt ("sacroiliac belt") during the second week; experimental group subjects wore the sacroiliac belt during the first week and the lumbar orthosis during the second week. User satisfaction (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 [QUEST 2.0] score), functional disability status (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain, and analgesic use were recorded. Results: Overall, the sacroiliac belt demonstrated significantly higher user satisfaction than the Horizon brace (QUEST Score = 20.31 vs. 16.17, p = 0.0375) for the entire study period. Significant negative correlations were identified between user satisfaction and functional disability (t = -4.71, p < 0.0001), pain magnitude (t = -6.81, p < 0.0001) as well as pain frequency (t = -6.66, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In this prospective randomized crossover study, subject satisfaction was associated with improvements in functional disability, pain magnitude and pain frequency. The sacroiliac belt demonstrated significantly higher user satisfaction and similar effectiveness compared to the lumbar orthosis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".