Effect of Application of Stretching Exercise versus Stretching Exercise and Natural Method on Pain and Functional Disability among Patients with Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction frequently contributes to low back pain, causing significant discomfort and functional disability. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of application of stretching exercise versus stretching exercise and natural method on pain and functional disability among patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Methods: Research design: A comparative, non-randomized quasi-experimental design. Setting and sampling: The study was conducted in the orthopedic department and outpatient clinic at Assiut University Hospitals, involving 290 non-randomized patients divided into two groups: group A (145 patients) received stretching exercises and natural method (massage with warm coconut oil), while group B (145 patients) performed only stretching exercises. Both groups received illustrated brochures and participated in a six-month intervention. Tools: Patients’ assessment form, numeric pain rating scale, Quebec back pain disability scale and Oswestry disability index. Results: Patients’ ages ranged from 20 to 58 years, with a predominance of females (group A: 73.1%; group B: 71.7%). Although both groups showed significant improvements in pain reduction and functional capacity, group A demonstrated statistically more substantial improvement (p < 0.01) in both pain reduction and functional capacity than group B. Conclusion: Incorporating natural method with stretching exercises may provide superior outcomes in managing pain and functional disability in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Recommendation: It is recommended to integrate natural methods alongside stretching exercises for managing sacroiliac joint dysfunction, as this combination can enhance pain relief and improve functional capacity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".