[Treatment of Persistent Somatoform Pain Disorder by Floating Needle Therapy and Duloxetine].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical effect and safety of floating needle therapy and duloxetine in treating patients with persistent somatoform pain disorder (PSPD). METHODS: Totally 108 PSPD patients were randomly assigned to the floating needle treatment group, the duloxetine treatment group, and the placebo treatment group, 36 in each group. Patients in the floating needle treatment group received floating needle therapy and placebo. Those in the duloxetine treatment group received duloxetine and simulated floating needle therapy. Those in the placebo treatment group received the placebo and simulated floating needle therapy. All treatment lasted for six weeks. Efficacy and adverse reactions were evaluated using Simple McGill pain scale (SF-MPQ) and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) before treatment and immediately after treatment, as well as at the end of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th week of treatment, respectively. Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD, 17 items), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) were assessed before treatment and at the end of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th week of treatment, respectively. Patients in the floating needle treatment group and the duloxetine treatment group with the total reducing score rate of SF-MPQ in Pain Rating index (PRI) ≥ 50% after 6 weeks' treatment were involved in the follow-up study. RESULTS: (1) Compared with the same group before treatment, SF-MPQ score, HAMD score and HAMA total scores all decreased in all the three groups at the end of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th week of treatment (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). Besides , each item of SF-MPQ significantly decreased immediately after treatment in the floating needle treatment group (P < 0.01). Compared with the placebo treatment group, SF-MPQ, HAMD, and HAMA total score in the floating needle treatment group significantly decreased after 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks of treatment (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). SF-MPQ score, HAMD score and HAMA total score in the duloxetine treatment group also significantly decreased after 2, 4, and 6 weeks of treatment (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). (2) There were 3 patients (8.3%) who had adverse reactions in the floating needle treatment group, 17 (50.0%) in the duloxetine treatment group, and 7 (21.2%) in the placebo treatment group. Compared with the placebo treatment group, the incidence of adverse reaction increased in the duloxetine treatment group (χ² = 6.04, P < 0.05). Besides, it was higher in the duloxetine treatment group than in the floating needle treatment group (χ² = 14.9, P < 0.05). (3) There were 19 patients in the floating needle treatment group and 17 patients in the duloxetine treatment group involved in the follow-up study. Compared with 6 weeks after treatment, no significant difference was observed at 3 and 6 months after treatment in the score of SF-MPQ, HAMD, and HAMA in the floating needle treatment group and the duloxetine treatment group. No significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). There were 5 patients (29.4%) who had adverse reactions in the duloxetine treatment group, and no adverse reactions were observed in the floating needle treatment group. The adverse reaction rate was significantly different between the two groups (χ² = 4.26, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Floating needle therapy and duloxetine were effective in treatment of patients with PSPD. However, floating needle therapy could relieve pain more rapidly than duloxetine, with obviously less adverse reactions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».