MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353051767 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.02.022

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Persons With Non-specific Low Back Pain With and Without Radiculopathy: Identification of Best Evidence for Rehabilitation to Develop the WHO's Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation

2023· review· en· W4353051767 on OpenAlexafffund
Fabio Zaina, Pierre Côté, Carol Cancelliere, Francesca Felice, Sabrina Donzelli, Alexandra Rauch, Leslie Verville, Stefano Négrini, Margareta Nordin

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersCanada Research ChairsCincinnati Children’s Research FoundationUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyMinistero della SaluteWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicinePsycINFOCINAHLRehabilitationPhysical therapyMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)ChiropracticLow back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To Identify evidence-based rehabilitation interventions for persons with non-specific low back pain (LBP) with and without radiculopathy and to develop recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR). DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, PEDro, the Trip Database, the Index to Chiropractic Literature and the gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible guidelines were (1) published between 2009 and 2019 in English, French, Italian, or Swedish; (2) included adults or children with non-specific LBP with or without radiculopathy; and (3) assessed the benefits of rehabilitation interventions on functioning. Pairs of independent reviewers assessed the quality of the CPGs using AGREE II. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 4 high-quality CPGs. Recommended interventions included (1) education about recovery expectations, self-management strategies, and maintenance of usual activities; (2) multimodal approaches incorporating education, exercise, and spinal manipulation; (3) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs combined with education in the acute stage; and (4) intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation that includes exercise and cognitive/behavioral interventions for persistent pain. We did not identify high-quality CPGs for people younger than 16 years of age. CONCLUSION: We developed evidence-based recommendations from high-quality CPGs to inform the WHO PIR for people with LBP with and without radiculopathy. These recommendations emphasize the potential benefits of education, exercise, manual therapy, and cognitive/behavioral interventions.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.012
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations92
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207