MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Short- and Long-Term Benefit in Chronic Low Back Pain Through Adjuvant Electrical Versus Manual Auricular Acupuncture

2004· article· en· W2108969502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureAnalgesicElectroacupunctureVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialMcGill Pain QuestionnaireChronic painPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Acupuncture is an established adjuvant analgesic modality for the treatment of chronic pain. Electrical stimulation of acupuncture points is considered to increase acupuncture analgesia. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study we tested the hypothesis that auricular electroacupuncture (EA) relieves pain more effectively than conventional manual auricular acupuncture (CO) in chronic low back pain patients with insufficient pain relief (visual analogue scale [VAS] > or = 5) treated with standardized analgesic therapy. Disposable acupuncture needles were inserted in the auricular acupuncture points 29, 40, and 55 of the dominant side and connected to a newly developed battery-powered miniaturized stimulator worn behind the ear. Patients were randomized into group EA (n = 31) with continuous low-frequency auricular EA (1 Hz biphasic constant current of 2 mA) and group CO (n = 30) without electrical stimulation (sham-electroacupuncture). Treatment was performed once weekly for 6 wk, and in each group needles were withdrawn 48 h after insertion. During the study period and a 3-mo follow-up, patients were asked to complete the McGill questionnaire. Psychological well being, activity level, quality of sleep, and pain intensity were assessed by means of VAS; moreover, analgesic drug consumption was documented. Pain relief was significantly better in group EA during the study and the follow-up period as compared with group CO. Similarly, psychological well-being, activity, and sleep were significantly improved in group EA versus group CO, the consumption of analgesic rescue medication was less, and more patients returned to full-time employment. Neuropathic pain in particular improved in patients treated with EA. There were no adverse side effects. These results are the first to demonstrate that continuous EA stimulation of auricular acupuncture points improves the treatment of chronic low back pain in an outpatient population. IMPLICATIONS: Continuous electrical stimulation of auricular acupuncture points using the new point stimulation device P-stim significantly decreases pain intensity and improves psychological well-being, activity, and sleep in chronic low back pain patients.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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