Effects of Reflexotherapy on Acute Postoperative Pain and Anxiety Among Patients With Digestive Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even after receiving analgesia, patients with gastric and liver cancer still report moderate levels of postoperative pain. The purpose of the study was to investigate the efficacy of foot reflexotherapy as adjuvant therapy in relieving pain and anxiety in postoperative patients with gastric cancer and hepatocellular cancer. The study design was a randomized controlled trial. Data were collected from 4 surgical wards of a medical center in 2005 in Taipei, Taiwan. Sixty-one patients who had received surgery for gastric cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma were randomly allocated to an intervention (n = 30) or control (n = 31) group. Patients in the intervention group received the usual pain management plus 20 minutes of foot reflexotherapy during postoperative days 2, 3, and 4. Patients in the control group received usual pain management. Outcome measures included the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, summary of the pain medications consumed, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results demonstrated that studied patients reported moderately high levels of pain and anxiety postoperatively while patients were managed with patient-controlled analgesia. Using generalized estimation equations and controlling for confounding variables, less pain (P < .05) and anxiety (P < .05) over time were reported by the intervention group compared with the control group. In addition, patients in the intervention group received significantly less opioid analgesics than the control group (P < .05). Findings from this study provide nurses with an additional treatment to offer postoperative digestive cancer patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".