A comparison of the effects of deep tissue massage and therapeutic massage on chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the effectiveness of two different kind of massage: therapeutic and deep tissue on chronic low back pain. METHODS: The research was made on 26 patient aged from 60 to 75 years who were separated into 2 groups: I [n=13] and II [n=13]. Group I had therapeutic massage [TM] which uses effleurage, petrissage, tapping and friction. Group II had deep tissue massage [DTM] which uses oblique pressure, a combination of lengthening and cross-fiber strokes, anchor and stretch, freeing muscle from entrapment. TM and DTM lasted for 10 days, each 30 min and were made by qualify massage therapist. Both groups did not have other treatment. Outcome measures obtained at baseline and after treatment consisted of Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale[QBPD] and Visual Analog Scale [VAS]. RESULTS: There was not statistically significant differences between groups according to age and BMI. Statistically significant differences were noted after TM in every test [ODI p=0.010; QBPD p<0.001; VAS p<0.001] and after DTM in every test [ODI p<0.001; QBPD p<0.001; VAS p<0.001]. DTM was statistically significant better therapy than TM in ODI [p=0.038] and VAS [p=0.015]. Further research is needed to verify the results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".