Efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and therapeutic exercise for older adults with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) in older adults may be disabling and therapeutically challenging, largely because of the inefficacy and/or morbidity associated with traditional pain treatment. We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 200 men and women > or = age 65 with CLBP to evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) with and without general conditioning and aerobic exercise (GCAE), for reducing pain and improving physical function. Participants were randomized to receive (1) PENS, (2) control-PENS (brief electrical stimulation to control for treatment expectancy), (3) PENS+GCAE, or (4) control-PENS+GCAE, twice a week for 6 weeks. All four groups experienced significantly reduced pain (range -2.3 to -4.1 on the McGill Pain Questionnaire short form), improved self-reported disability (range -2.1 to -3.0 on Roland scale) and improved gait velocity (0.04-0.07 m/s), sustained at 6 months. The GCAE groups experienced significantly fewer fear avoidance beliefs immediately post-intervention and at 6 months than non-GCAE groups. There were no significant side effects. Since brief electrical stimulation (i.e., control-PENS) facilitated comparably reduced pain and improved function at 6 months as compared with PENS, the exact dose of electrical stimulation required for analgesia cannot be determined. GCAE was more effective than PENS alone in reducing fear avoidance beliefs, but not in reducing pain or in improving physical function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".