Acupuncture, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation, and Laser Therapy in Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to determine how effective acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture-like transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, and neuroreflexotherapy are in the management of chronic pain. METHODOLOGY: The literature search identified six systematic reviews of the literature and four randomized controlled trials to provide evidence for this review. RESULTS: The systematic reviews included different methodologies and heterogeneity of study groups, but studies were generally of poor methodology. Although sham acupuncture may have analgesic effects, it was used as a control in many studies. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the evidence was contradictory or inadequate, reflecting poor study methodologies. No positive conclusion could be reached for acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture-like transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser therapy, or neuroreflexotherapy. A single randomized controlled trial provided limited evidence (level 3) that electrical nerve stimulation is effective for pain relief in myofascial pain syndrome for up to 4 weeks, but further study in humans is needed. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews should include subgroup analyses of sham acupuncture and inert placebos as controls.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".