Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).
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 | 0.020 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".