Effect of Massage on Pain Management for Thoracic Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrative therapies such as massage have gained support as interventions that improve the overall patient experience during hospitalization. Thoracic surgery patients undergo long procedures and commonly have postoperative back, neck, and shoulder pain. PURPOSE: Given the promising effects of massage therapy for alleviation of pain, we studied the effectiveness and feasibility of massage therapy delivered in the postoperative thoracic surgery setting. METHODS: Patients who received massage in the postoperative setting had pain scores evaluated pre and post massage on a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain). RESULTS: In total, 160 patients completed the pilot study and received massage therapy that was individualized. Patients receiving massage therapy had significantly decreased pain scores after massage (p ≤ .001), and patients' comments were very favorable. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with having massage therapy available, and no major barriers to implementing massage therapy were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Massage therapy may be an important additional pain management component of the healing experience for patients after thoracic surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".