[A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials of abdominal acupuncture treatment of cervical spondylosis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect and methodological quality of clinically randomized controlled studies on abdominal acupuncture therapy for cervical spondylosis and to make out its current situation, validity and applicability. METHODS: Using the PubMed, CNKI (China Academic Journals Full-text Database), VIP (VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Database) and Wanfang Digital Periodicals Electronic Database covering the period of 1989-2009, we did a literature search on the original articles of abdominal acupuncture treatment of cervical spondylosis and selected those accorded with the standards of randomized controlled studies. Animal studies, surveys, and news articles, and those duplicated, being absent in diagnostic criteria and non-randomized controlled trials were excluded. The papers' quality was analyzed by using the Jadad quality assessment scoring system and the therapeutic effect evaluated by using Review Manage 4.2.7 software. RESULTS: A total of 8 papers containing 909 cervical spondylosis patients and written in Chinese were included. These 8 studies used the effective rate as the primary outcome, 2 of them used the McGill Pain Questionnaire scales at the same time. Meta-analysis showed that the abdominal acupuncture group was better than the control group in visual analogue scale score (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between abdominal acupuncture and routine acupuncture [OR = 3.29, 95% CI (0.13, 82.99)], EA [OR = 2.09, 95% CI (0.36, 11.95)] and traction therapy [OR = 6.06, 95% CI (3.01, 12.18)] in the total effective rate, pain rating index score [WMD = -2.24, 95% CI (-5.29, 0.81)] and the present pain intensity score [WMD = -0.84, 95% CI (-2.13, 0.44)]. CONCLUSION: At the present, there has been no sufficient evidence to ensure that in the treatment of cervical spondylosis, the abdominal acupuncture therapy is superior to routine acupuncture, EA and traction therapy. Attention should be paid to the randomized controlled study of larger samples and qualified design.
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 | 0.038 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.097 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".