Effectiveness comparison between Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture for myofascial back pain in Thai military personnel: a preliminary report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this randomized comparative study was to provide preliminary data of comparative effectiveness of Thai traditional massage (TTM) and Chinese acupuncture for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young military personnel. Eighteen Thai military personnel, aged ranging from 20-40 years were randomly divided into TTM and acupuncture groups. Each group received 5 sessions of massage or acupuncture during a 10-day period. The Thai version McGill Pain Questionnaire, 100-mm, visual analog scale (VAS) and summation of pain threshold in each trigger point measured by pressure algometer were assessed at day 0, 3, 8 and 10. At the end of treatment protocols, McGill scores decreased significantly in TTM and acupuncture groups (p = 0.024 and 0.002, respectively). VAS also decreased significantly (p = 0.029 and 0.003, respectively). However, the pain pressure threshold increased significantly in the acupuncture group but not in the TTM group (p = 0.006 and 0.08, respectively). When outcomes were compared between the two groups, no significant difference was found in the VAS (p = 0.115) and pain pressure threshold (p = 0.116), whereas the acupuncture group showed significantly lower McGill scores than the TTM group (p = 0.039). In conclusion, five sessions of Thai traditional massage and Chinese acupuncture were effective for the treatment of myofascial back pain in young Thai military personnel. Significant effects in both groups begin after the first session. Acupuncture is more effective than Thai traditional massage when affective aspect is also evaluated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".