Physiotherapy versus pain medication for managing chronic cervical radiculopathy: protocol for a multi-arm parallel-group randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p><ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is one of the prevalent causes of neck pain and disability. Physiotherapy and pain medications are the common nonoperative management, and in physiotherapy, there are many concepts of assessment and management. This study aims to determine the comparative effectiveness of three specialized physiotherapy approaches or only pain medications for managing CR cases.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> A prospective, assessor, and participant-blind, four-arm randomized control trial (RCT) has been planned to conduct on 160 patients with chronic cervical radiculopathy in 4 specialized centers of Dhaka city recruited between July and December 2022. Four groups (n=40) will be treated through structural diagnosis and management concept (SDM), regional approaches (RA), McKenzie mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) concept prescribed by advanced practice physiotherapist (APP), or pain medications prescribed by the specialist physician for 4 weeks. The outcome will be evaluated in baseline, intermediate test (14 days), and post-treatment (28 days) through Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for pain, Goniometer reading for cervical range of motion (ROM), and Neck disability index (NDI) as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome will be quality of life measured at baseline and post-treatment by the WHO quality of life questionnaire WHOQOL-BREF. </ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Discussion:</ns4:bold> The study will compare the efficacy of the three physiotherapy approaches with pain medications when treating chronic cervical radiculopathy. The findings will provide evidence when demining the best conservative management approach for CR.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Clinical Trial Registry India:</ns4:bold> CTRI/2022/03/040922 (08/03/2022)</ns4:p>
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 | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".