Acupuncture in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients (n = 60) with chronic low back pain were recruited and randomly allocated to either Acupuncture therapy or Placebo transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) groups. Patients were treated weekly for 6 weeks, and blinded assessments were carried out pre- and post-treatment using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, the Short-form 36 quality-of-life questionnaire, and a simple range of motion measurement. A total of 46 patients completed the trial and were followed up at 6 months. RESULTS: Analysis of results using t tests showed that in both groups there were significant pre-post improvements for all scores, except for MPQ scores in the Placebo-TENS group. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for any of the outcome measures at the end of treatment. Results from the 6-month follow-up would suggest that the response was better in the acupuncture group. DISCUSSION: Further research is necessary to fully assess the efficacy of this treatment in combating chronic low back pain using larger sample sizes or alternative control groups.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".