L’approche cognitivo-comportementale dans la prise en charge aigüe du coup du lapin et ses troubles associés : une revue systématique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Whiplash is the most common injury among drivers. It causes chronically invalidating physical and psychological symptoms, known as whiplash associated disorders. Notably, behavioural signs such as kinesiophobia, catastrophism and hypervigilance are the mark of a post-traumatic stress that can be very disabling for the individual sometimes on the long term. This systematic literature review aims to investigate the effectiveness of protocols offering a cognitivo-behavioral approach in acute management of whiplash associated disorders compared to standard treatments.Methods: Pubmed and PEDro databases were the main sources of articles, grey literature was also taken into account. The population subjected to the therapeutics had to be in the acute phase of the pathology and to be categorized into grades 1, 2 or 3 according to the classification of The Quebec Task Force. The main outcomes were the Neck Disability Index and a pain indicator such the Analog Visual Scale or the Numeric Rating Scale. The results were submitted to statistical analysis. Results: Four recent articles were included in the review of the literature. All showed better symptom improvement in the interventional group than in the control group. This was statistically significant for two of them regarding the evolution of neck disability, their size effect are -7,60 [95% CI -14,39 ; -0,81] and -11,30 [95% CI -17,51 ; -5,09]. Conclusion: Cognitivo-behavioral therapies seem to offer a better rehabilitation to patients with whiplash in the acute phase. However, the lack of articles of high methodological quality indicates the need for further investigation in this area, as whiplash is a frequent condition with significant impact both at the individual and society level.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".