The effects of topical heat therapy on chest pain in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomised double‐blind placebo‐controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of local heat therapy on chest pain in patients with acute coronary syndrome. BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a very common complaint in patients with acute coronary syndrome. It is managed both pharmacologically and nonpharmacologically. Pharmacological pain management is associated with different side effects. DESIGN: This was a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 2013. METHODS: A convenience sample of 66 patients with acute coronary syndrome was selected from a coronary care unit of a local teaching hospital affiliated to Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran. Patients were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the placebo group. Patients in the experimental and the placebo groups received local heat therapy using a hot pack warmed to 50 and 37 °C, respectively. We assessed chest pain intensity, duration and frequency as well as the need for opioid analgesic therapy both before and after the study. The study instrument consisted of a demographic questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a data sheet for documenting pain frequency and duration as well as the need for analgesic therapy. FINDINGS: The placebo heat therapy did not significantly decrease the intensity, the duration and the frequency of pain episodes. However, pain intensity, duration and frequency in the experimental group decreased significantly after the study. Moreover, the groups differed significantly in terms of the need for opioid analgesic therapy neither before nor after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Local heat therapy is an effective intervention for preventing and relieving chest pain in patients with acute coronary syndrome. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Effective pain management using local heat therapy could help nurses play an important role in providing effective care to patients with acute coronary syndrome and in minimising adverse effects associated with pain medications.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".