MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906554483 · doi:10.17632/85nd9krcdx

An overview of systematic reviews investigating the accuracy, reliability, and relationships of tests and measures for diagnosis of neck pain.

2023· dataset· en· W6906554483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMendeley Data · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeck painSystematic reviewWhiplashMEDLINECervical vertebraePhysical examinationDifferential diagnosisCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Neck pain is a common condition and often difficult to differentiate and diagnose. Previous literature has investigated diagnostic accuracy of examination measures but is limited. Objective: To investigate examination measures for diagnosis of neck pain. Design: Umbrella review Literature Search: Four databases were searched electronically. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Diagnostic criteria were investigated for accuracy, reliability, and relationship to neck pain diagnoses. Study Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials evaluating diagnostic criteria for neck pain. Data Synthesis: Twenty seven systematic reviews were included. Quantitative and qualitative results were summarized in narrative format. Results: Hand radiculopathy and numbness have good specificities (0.89-0.92) for facet and uncinate joint hypertrophy. The extension rotation test (ERT) and manual assessment have good sensitivities and moderate-good specificities. Positive ERT combined with positive manual assessment findings (+LR = 4.71; Sp = 0.83) improves diagnostic accuracy compared to a positive ERT alone (+LR = 2.01; Sp = 0.59). Canadian C-spine Rules and Nexus low-risk criteria have excellent validity in screening for cervical fracture or instability. Imaging appears to have validity in diagnosing ligamentous disruption or fractures, but lacks clarity on predicting future neck pain. Increased fatty infiltrates have been found with whiplash associated disorders and mechanical neck pain. Conclusions: There are limited indicators providing strong diagnostic value for cervical spine diagnosis. Strength of recommendations are limited by heterogeneous outcomes, methodology, and classification systems. Future research should attempt to provide stronger recommendations of differential diagnostic criteria for pathoanatomical neck pain diagnoses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0240.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.534
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMendeley DataFrench-language works237,207