Active behavioural physiotherapy intervention for acute non-specific neck pain: a cluster randomised double-blind pilot and feasibility clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of an active behavioural physiotherapy intervention (ABPI) and procedures to prevent the transition to chronicity in patients with acute non-specific neck pain (ANSNP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cluster-randomised double-blind (assessors and participants), parallel 2-arm (ABPI versus standard physiotherapy intervention [SPI]) pilot and feasibility clinical trial was conducted owing to a pre-specified published protocol. Six public hospitals were recruited and cluster-randomised (computer-generated randomisation with block sampling). Sixty participants (30 in each arm, 10 per hospital) were assessed at baseline and 3 months following baseline for neck disability index, numerical pain rating scale, cervical range-of-motion, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level. RESULTS: All procedures worked well. The participants' median age was 36.5 (range 21-59, interquartile range: 20.75) years. Participants in the ABPI demonstrated better improvement in all outcomes compared to SPI. Furthermore, the number of fully recovered participants following ABPI (27/30, 90.00%) was higher than SPI (16/30, 53.33%) with fewer treatment sessions and lower costs of management. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the ABPI is feasible and valuable (e.g. a high number of fully recovered participants, fewer treatment sessions and reduced management costs compared to the SPI) in conducting a future definitive trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ANSNP management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TCTR20180607001.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".