MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Acupuncture Upon Experimentally Induced Ischemic Pain: A Sham-Controlled Single-Blind Study

2000· article· en· W2017648622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Panos Barlas, Andrea S. Lowe, Deirdre Walsh, David Baxter, Jim M. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineAcupunctureVisual analogue scaleAnalysis of varianceAnesthesiaTourniquetRepeated measures designMcGill Pain QuestionnairePhysical therapyElectroacupuncturePlacebo groupInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypoalgesic effect of true and sham acupuncture upon experimentally induced ischemic pain. DESIGN: Human volunteers (n = 60) were required to attend two sessions for pain induction using a submaximal effort tourniquet technique; on the first occasion, baseline pain scores were recorded and on the second, 48 hours later, subjects were randomly allocated to one of five groups: Control, Treatment Groups 1 or 2, or Placebo Groups 1 or 2. SUBJECTS: Healthy human volunteers. INTERVENTION: In all the Treatment and Placebo Groups, subjects received some form of needle acupuncture 15 minutes before, and 5 minutes during, the pain induction procedure on the second day. Treatment Group 1 received acupuncture on acupuncture points situated distal to the tourniquet, whereas Treatment Group 2 received acupuncture on acupuncture points situated proximal to the tourniquet. In Placebo Groups 1 and 2, subjects received 'sham' acupuncture either on nonacupuncture points (Placebo Group 1) or on acupuncture points (Placebo Group 2) using (standardized) minimal levels of stimulation. A licensed acupuncturist who was not involved in data collection and analyses carried out all treatments. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain was assessed using a computerized visual analog scale (VAS) and a McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). RESULTS: Analysis of VAS scores using ANOVA revealed no significant differences between groups (e.g., VAS sum of differences data (mean +/- SEM): Treatment Group 1: 90+/-47, Treatment Group 2: 187+/-56, Placebo Group 1: 152+/-40, Placebo Group 2: 121+/-42, CONTROLS: 46+/-24, p>0.05). Analysis of MPQ percentage difference scores using one-way ANOVA revealed some isolated effects in the subjective descriptors and the Pain Rating Index, both for Treatment Group 2 and Placebo Group 2, proving them superior to any of the other groups. CONCLUSION: The results of the study provide no convincing evidence for a superior hypoalgesic effect of acupuncture compared with "sham" procedures on this model of experimental pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207