A Randomized Trial Comparing Acupuncture and Simulated Acupuncture for Subacute and Chronic Whiplash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with 3 and 6 months follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of acupuncture with simulated acupuncture in patients with subacute and chronic whiplash-associated disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acupuncture is widely used for the treatment of neck and other musculoskeletal pain, and there is some evidence supporting its effectiveness for short-term pain relief. The effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of whiplash-associated disorders is not clear. METHODS: A total of 124 patients between 18 and 65 years with chronic (85%) or subacute whiplash-associated disorders (Grade I or II) were randomly allocated to real or simulated electroacupuncture treatment for 12 sessions during a 6-week period. Both treatments involved skin penetration with acupuncture needles and were provided by a single university-trained acupuncturist in a University Clinic in Sydney, Australia. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and health-related quality of life (SF-36). Secondary outcomes were patient-specific activity scales, and the McGill Pain Rating Index. RESULTS: Mean initial pain intensity for all participants was 5.6 cm. Participants receiving the real electroacupuncture treatment had significantly greater reduction in pain intensity at 3 and 6 months, 0.9 cm (P = 0.05) and 1.3 cm (P = 0.007), respectively, in comparison to the sham electro-acupuncture group. After adjustment for baseline status, there was no significant reduction in disability, or improvement in health-related quality of life. There was an improvement in the activity scales of a similar size to the reduction in pain, but no difference in the McGill Index. CONCLUSION: Real electroacupuncture was associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity over at least 6 months. This reduction was probably not clinically significant. There was no improvement in disability or quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".