Effectiveness of Chiropractic Application in Individuals with Cervical Disc Herniation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of chiropractic intervention on the severity of neck pain, functional capacity, and disability level in individuals with cervical disc herniation. Method: The study population comprised of 50 individuals with cervical disc herniation who met the inclusion criteria. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (n=26) and a control group (n=24). All participants received conventional physiotherapy five days a week for four weeks. In the intervention group, in addition to conventional physiotherapy, chiropractic adjustment using a diversified technique for cervical disc herniation was applied twice a week for four weeks. The McGill Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MMPQ), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Bournemouth Neck Questionnaire (BNQ) were employed to evaluate the neck pain, functionality, and disability levels of both groups before and after treatment. Findings: The combination of conventional physiotherapy and additional chiropractic intervention proved to be an effective approach for reducing neck pain and disability levels while enhancing functionality in individuals with cervical disc herniation post-treatment (p<0.001). Nevertheless, no notable discrepancies were discerned between the control and chiropractic intervention groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: The application of chiropractic principles and practices was observed to result in a notable diminution of both neck pain and disability levels among those presenting with cervical disc herniation, together with an enhancement of functional abilities. Therefore, this approach may be considered as a potential alternative to existing treatment options for the management of individuals with cervical disc herniation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".