Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the relief of post‐partum uterine contraction pain during breast‐feeding: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) used to relieve uterine contraction pain during breast-feeding in multiparous women. METHODS: A controlled and randomized clinical trial was performed with 32 post-partum multiparous women who were breast-feeding. The participants were randomized into an experimental (EG, n = 16) and a control group (CG, n = 16). Pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale and the descriptors of the Present Pain Intensity (PPI - McGill) during two sequential feeds. In the first assessment, the post-partum women in the EG and CG were monitored while breast-feeding and questioned regarding the degree of uterine contraction pain. In the second assessment, which was performed at the next feed, the EG used TENS while the CG was monitored, with pain being reassessed following. In the EG, the TENS electrodes were placed between T10-L1 and S2-S4, with a frequency of 100 Hz, a pulse duration of 75 μs and amplitude adjusted to produce a strong and tolerable sensation for 40 min. A descriptive analysis of the data and comparative intra- and intergroup analyses were performed by means of a non-parametrical test, with a significance level P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: The level of basal pain was 5.56 in the EG and 5.50 in the CG. In the intragroup analysis, the EG (P < 0.0001) and CG (P = 0.04) presented significant pain reduction. In the intergroup analysis, the EG had significant pain reduction (P < 0.01) in comparison to the CG. In the PPI analysis, a non-significant decrease in pain intensity was observed in the EG. CONCLUSION: TENS was found to be effective in reducing post-partum uterine contraction pain during breast-feeding.
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 | 0.025 | 0.114 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".