MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thiele massage as a therapeutic option for women with chronic pelvic pain caused by tenderness of pelvic floor muscles

2010· article· en· W1568243025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Lourdes Montenegro, Elaine Cristine Lemes Mateus-Vasconcelos, Francisco José Cândido dos Reis, Júlio César Rosa e Silva, Antônio Alberto Nogueira, Omero Benedicto Poli‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTendernessMedicineMassagePelvic floorVisual analogue scalePelvic painPhysical therapyPelvic Floor MuscleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal system has been found to be involved in genesis and perpetuation of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and has strong evidences that up to 80% of women with CPP present dysfunction of the musculoskeletal system. In this study, we report a series of women with CPP caused by tenderness of pelvic floor muscles successfully treated with Thiele massage. METHODS: Were included in this study six women with CPP caused by tenderness of the levator ani muscle that underwent transvaginal massage using the Thiele technique, over a period of 5 minutes repeated once a week for 4 weeks. After 1 month, the women returned for follow-up. RESULTS: The median tenderness score for the six women evaluated was 3 at the first evaluation and 0 after 1 month of follow-up (P < 0.01). The mean Visual Analogue Scale and McGill Pain Index scores were 8.1 and 34, respectively, at the first evaluation, and 1.5 and 16.6 at follow-up (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Thiele massage appears to be very helpful for women with CPP caused by tenderness of the levator ani muscle. However, these results are preliminary and a larger number of women are necessary to obtain more conclusive 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207