One-Shot Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation vs. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic effects of one shot of low-frequency percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation one shot of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with low back pain. DESIGN: In total, 133 low back pain patients were recruited for this randomized, control study. Group 1 patients received medication only. Group 2 patients received medication plus one shot of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Group 3 patients received medication plus one shot of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Therapeutic effects were measured using a visual analog scale, body surface score, pain pressure threshold, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. RESULTS: Immediately after one-shot treatment, the visual analog scale improved 1.53 units and the body surface score improved 3.06 units in the percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group. In the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group, the visual analog scale improved 1.50 units and the body surface score improved 3.98 units. The improvements did not differ between the two groups. There were no differences in improvement at 3 days or 1 wk after the treatment among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simple one-shot treatment with percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation provided immediate pain relief for low back pain patients. One-shot transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatment is recommended due to the rarity of side effects and its convenient application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".