[Moxibustion on heat-sensitive acupoints for treatment of myofascial pain syndrome: a multi-central randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical therapeutic effect of moxibustion on heat-sensitive acupoints on myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). METHODS: Three-centre, single blind, randomized controlled trial method was adopted. One hundred and seven cases were randomly divided into an observation group (n = 57), and a control group (n = 50). The observation group were treated by moxibustion on the heat-sensitive acupoints and the control group by acupuncture, cupping and TDP. The therapeutic effects were assessed according to changes of the score of the short-form of McGill pain questionnaire composing of pain rating index (PRI), visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) before and after treatment. RESULTS: The cured rate of 86.0% in the observation group was better than 24.0% in the control group. After treatment, the score of PRI, VAS, PPI indexes significantly improved in the observation group (P < 0.001), and were significantly better than those in the control group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Moxibustion on the heat-sensitive acupoints has a high therapeutic effect on MPS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".