Effects of heatwrap and exercise in acute low back pain: a multi-arm randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question Is a heatwrap combined with exercise more effective in improving symptoms and functional outcomes on short- mid- and long-term than either a heatwrap alone or a sham heatwrap in acute low back pain? Design A multi-arm randomised controlled trial. Participants Adults aged 18 to 65 years with a new episode of low back pain (defined as pain for six weeks or less with no low back pain in the three months preceding the current episode). Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: heatwrap plus exercise (n=34), heatwrap alone (n=33) or sham heatwrap (n=32). All participants were asked to wear the heatwrap eight hours per day for seven days. The exercise group had to perform exercises 30 minutes per day for five days. All participants received evidence-based advice for the management of their pain. Outcome measures Our primary outcome was pain-related disability at one week measured with the Oswestry Disability Index. Our secondary outcomes were pain intensity, pain-related fear of movement, self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing and perception of change. Outcomes were measured at baseline and at 1, 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Data analysis We used linear mixed models (LMMs) to compare intervention efficacy on all outcomes at all time-points with intention-to-treat analyses, testing the Group x Time interaction. Results The analysis included 99 participants. The results for pain-related disability showed no Group x Time interaction (F=0.467; p=0.910), but a statistically significant time effect was observed (F=39.843; p<0.001) as scores decreased for all groups at one week, with an estimated mean difference of −7.8 (95% CI −9.7 to −5.9). All outcomes showed a time effect at all time-points. Conclusion A combination of heatwrap and exercise did not provide a superior effect on symptoms and functional outcomes on short-, mid and long-term when compared to a heatwrap alone and a sham heatwrap in adults with acute low back pain. Future guidelines should consider these results to formulate recommendations for acute LBP. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03986047
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".